reckon i should go for a reformat?

A format will not fix the chkdsk problem, may not fix a malware problem, but will set you months, or years behind in security update. That's why a format is ALWAYS a last ditch effort.

i'm running so little programs

But what do you have starting with Windows?

Try cleaning up your hard drive of all the accumulated junk that collects during normal use.

Directions here: How to clean up your hard drive to increase free space NOW!

and here: How to free up space on your hard drive - long term

After that's done, try chkdsk and defrag again. With more free space, they may complete successfully.

thanks for the replies guys.

ztruker,
that was really comprehensive and helpful thanks alot. will follow it after the reformat.. this time round it won't be the case of a loaded HDD as this pc is 2 weeks old.

Digerati,
yeah i read ur post somewhere else, i've gotten what i need on hand to install before i hit the net, thankfully for the 2nd hdd i have(used for storage only).
i start windows with
Zone Alarm/Avast/MSN messenger/Steam/ATi Control panel/Realtek HD audio manager
that is all!


gettin all the sluggish response when i'm running photoshop just drives me nuts. and the boot time is really not normal after comparing with a friend's older set up, with the same OS and the same anti virus and firewall..

I would dump ZA. It's a space and resource hog.

I run Avast and COMODO (firewall ~only~) and nothing has got past those programs without my permission. IMHO MS products like Windows Firewall and Windows Defender etc are all junk.

ah yes MS firewall is pure crap. i really wonder what does it even block out.

i just checked out comodo, i'll switch to that instead of ZA, however i'll just install it as a firewall standalone. however will it be suitable for xp SP3? i see that the installation file in comodo's website showing Choose Operating System: Win XP (SP2) / vista 32 bit

i suppose that means with a minimum of SP2?

Runs fine with SP3.

ah yes MS firewall is pure crap.

Why do you say that? Because 10 years ago it stumbled on its start?

i really wonder what does it even block out.

Windows Firewall and Windows Defender have been protecting 100s of millions of Windows machines, for years, with NO problems. WF is a good firewall that does it's job well, without all the bloat and in your face stuff 24/7. Sure, INITIALLY, it was a one-way firewall, only blocking incoming. But really, what's wrong with that? It does that well. If you really need outgoing protection, that means you have failed to keep your incoming defenses up - that's not WF's fault. WF is a basic firewall, does not pretend to be more. And does not need to be for the vast majority of users

I've been running a couple "default" Windows systems for years - with Window Firewall, Windows Defender, and IE using all the default settings. One has AVG Free with AS disabled, the other Avira. Both machines have been used by many users (mostly teens and adults) and never been infected. Why? Because they were patched and updated on a timely bases, and not used for risky stuff - like illegal filesharing.

Is there better stuff out there? Yes, but that does not mean WF (or WD) are bad.

I am current testing Microsoft Security Essentials with Win7. This includes WF and their new anti-malware scanner. It's not fancy either. Does not do all sorts of extra things that add bloat, and so far, supplemental scans are clean.

hmmm to be totally honest i find many instances where i have to crack files. whether for a "downloaded software" or for a totally paid for software off the shelves.
say, stuff like game exes, whether to make a downloaded game work or remove the need to use the dvd to play it.

and WF doesnt seem to protect very much at all.. ZA seem to pick up stuff WF never did.. also, there are barely any settings i can choose from or configure unlike other firewalls like ZA.. etc..

i dont know bout windows ten years back or much about firewall at all though.. as pretty much a layman in firewalls, WF just dont work so well for me!

and WF doesnt seem to protect very much at all.. ZA seem to pick up stuff WF never did

See? That illustrates my point. Firewalls don't pick up anything - they block ports. ZA, even the free version, is more than just a basic firewall, and much more intrusive.

Now understand, I am not saying WF is right for everyone - I am just saying is it is all that is needed if the machine is kept current, and, is running a decent real-time anti-malware program, and the user practices safe computing and avoids risky behavior.

If you are saying your system was being compromised before, then more than just your FW failed to do its job - that is but one layer. We must take published criticism in reviews, even professional reviews, with a grain of salt. They put "test" systems in unrealistic scenarios, then bombard them with unrealistic barrage of threats. That is not how the typical user uses the Internet. If you participate in risky practices, then by all means, armor up. But you can have the best firewall and layers and layers of protection but if you, the user, open a port to play a game, or download a pirated song or program, you expose yourself to threats, not the FW or other defenses.

get your point. well in that sense if a firewall's considered good it means it simply keeps u safe without picking up anything. prevention rather than finding something then cure. yes that makes sense.

well i wanna be protected when i open ports and such. HAHAHA

oh well problem solved, regarding the nature of this thread, done with a reformat.